by Tom Holland
25 Again, on the evidence of Ibn al-Qalanisi. See Assad, p. 107
26 Adémar, 3.46
27 Ibid., 3.35
28 Ibid., 3.46
29 Ibid., 3.47
30 For a definitive statement, see Moore (1987), p. 89
31 For a powerful statement of this argument, see Landes (1996).
32 Quoted by Landes (1995), p. 41
33 Glaber, 3.24
34 The testimony of a Persian traveller, Nasir-i-Khusrau, who visited the church in 1047. Biddle (p. 79) quotes it as evidence that the restoration project must have been begun long before the traditional date of 1048, which derives from the much later chronicle of William of Tyre. As Biddle also points out (p. 81), the speed with which the church was rebuilt offers the likeliest explanation for the silence of Western writers about the destruction of 1009 in the decades that preceded the First Crusade. “The event of 1009 was not mentioned, not because it had passed out of memory, nor because men did not care, but rather because architectural history was not relevant.”
35 Quoted by Landes (1995), p. 45. For a brilliant explication of how and why Adémar sought to obscure the apocalyptic tenor of his times, see ibid., pp. 144–53 and 287–308. Anyone who writes on Adémar must be for ever in Landes’s debt.
36 Glaber, 2.22
37 The precise date of Vilgard’s heresy is unknown.
38 Adémar, 3.143
39 Andrew of Fleury, Miraculi Sancti Benedicti, p. 248
40 The degree to which mass heresy existed, or was a nightmare conjured up by its chroniclers, is intensely controversial. For the view that it was a reflection of faction battles among a clerical elite, see Moore’s essay (2000). For a strongly stated – and, in my opinion, thoroughly convincing – counter-view, see Landes (1995), pp. 37–40
41 It is true that one heretic, a theologian by the name of Priscillian, had been executed back in 383 – but even then on an official charge of sorcery. One intriguing theory holds that it was his tomb which subsequently came to be venerated at Santiago. See Fletcher (1984), p. 59
42 Adémar, 3.138
43 From a letter by a monk named Heribert. Quoted by Lobrichon (1992), p. 85
44 Adémar, 3.138
45 Wazo of Liège, p. 228
46 Landulf Senior, p. 65
47 Adam of Bremen, 4.8
48 John of Salerno, Life of Odo, 2.3
49 Wazo of Liège, p. 228
50 From “The Miracles that Happened at Fécamp”: van Houts, p. 78
51 Liber Miraculorum Sancte Fidis, 2.12
52 Glaber, 3.19
53 Quoted by Landes (1995), p. 177. See also Landes (1991).
54 For the full extraordinary story of Adémar’s forgeries, see ibid.
55 Glaber, 4.1
56 Ibid., 4.21
57 Ibid., 4.18
58 Arnold of Regensburg, p. 563.
59 Glaber, 4.18
60 Quoted by Landes (1995), p. 322
61 Glaber, 4.14
62 Ibid., 4.17
63 Arnold of Regensburg, p. 547
64 Ibid.
65 Wipo, p. 40
66 Wido of Osnabrück, p. 467
67 From the anathema against the Eastern Church delivered by Cardinal Humbert. Ironically, he appears to have regarded the practice of depicting Christ dead upon the Cross as a peculiarly Greek one.
68 Arnulf of Milan, 3.4
69 Hildebrand’s precise origins are controversial. The claims that are repeated here – that they were humble – were so widespread as to seem to me irrefutable; but some scholars have argued that Hildebrand was in fact Gregory VI’s nephew, either by marriage or by blood. If the latter, then the foremost steward of the Catholic Church in the eleventh century was the grandson of a Jew. The biographies of Cowdrey (pp. 27–8) and Morghen (pp. 10–11) represent the opposite poles of opinion on this. That Hildebrand became a monk while still a boy is, again, the expression of a consensus rather than a certainty.
70 Acts of the Apostles 8.23
71 Peter Damian, Vita Romualdi, p. 33
72 Desiderius of Monte Cassino, p. 1143
73 Life of Pope Leo IX, 1.2
74 Ibid., 1.15
75 Ibid., 2.3
76 Hildebert, col. 865
77 John of Fécamp, col. 797
78 From the notorious letter written by Humbert to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and published under Leo’s name: PL 143, col. 752
79 Humbert, De Sancta Romana Ecclesia. Quoted by Schramm 2 (1929), p. 128
80 Otto of Freising, The Two Cities, 6.33
81 Desiderius of Monte Cassino, 1.2
82 Amatus of Monte Cassino, 3.7
83 Ibid., 3.16
84 Blickling Homilies, p. 137
85 Liudprand, The Mission to Constantinople, 3.34
86 Revelation 12.9. The prophecy that Michael would kill the Antichrist dates back to the late fourth century.
87 Hermann of Reichenau, p. 132
88 William of Apulia, 2.240–1
89 Michael Psellus, p. 116.
90 Ibid., p. 269
91 Orderic Vitalis, 5.27.
6 1066 and All That
1 Miracula S. Wulframni. Quoted by Haskins, p. 259
2 According to the tradition preserved by William of Apulia, at any rate. Amatus of Monte Cassino tells a different story, but in his account too, the first Normans recruited as mercenaries in southern Italy are described as originally having been pilgrims.
3 Amatus of Monte Cassino, 1.2
4 Dudo, 269. He is referring to Richard I.
5 The theory is Bachrach’s. See Fulk Nerra, pp. 228–9
6 Not, as is conventionally alleged, a tanner. See Van Houts (1986).
7 See Searle (1986).
8 Glaber, 4.22
9 Adam of Bremen, 4.21
10 William of Poitiers, 1.44
11 William of Jumièges, vol. 2, p. 92
12 Encomium Emmae Reginae, 2.16
13 Geoffrey of Malaterra, 1.3
14 Orderic Vitalis, 4.82
15 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Abingdon Manuscript), entry for 1042
16 William of Poitiers, 1.7
17 Ibid., 1.48
18 Snorri Sturluson, The Ynglinga Saga, 1
19 From an epitaph inscribed on a rune stone, memorialising adventurers who had travelled to “Serkland.” Quoted by Page, p. 89
20 The derivation of the name is widely, but not universally, accepted. The socalled “Normanist controversy” – the question of whether the Rus were predominantly Scandinavian or Slavic – has been a point of issue between Western and Russian scholars for two hundred years. See Franklin and Shepherd, pp. 28 passim, for a concise overview.
21 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos, p. 94
22 Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla. The Saga of Olaf Haraldsson, chapter 238
23 Ibid., chapter 199
24 Snorri Sturluson, King Harald’s Saga, chapter 2
25 Ibid.
26 Russian Primary Chronicle, p. 111
27 Michael Psellus, p. 33
28 Snorri Sturluson, King Harald’s Saga, chapter 5
29 Ibid., chapter 12. One plausible suggestion is that Harald’s undoubted presence in Jerusalem related to the restoration of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. See Ellis Davidson, p. 219
30 Snorri Sturluson, King Harald’s Saga, chapter 16
31 Ibid., chapter 17
32 Laxdaela Saga, chapter 77. The description of the hero’s return from service with “the King of Miklagard” would surely have served for Harald’s as well.
33 Adam of Bremen, 2.61
34 From a Mass for St. Olaf found in an English missal, dated to 1061. See Iversen, p. 405
35 Snorri Sturluson, King Harald’s Saga, chapter 17
36 Ibid., chapter 1
37 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle(Worcester Manuscript), entry for 1051
38 Life of King Edward who Rests at Westminster, pp. 58–9
39 Although, according to Orderic Vitalis, it was Tostig
himself who arrived in Norway to make the proposal.
40 Such, at any rate, is what appears to be implied by the scene that appears below the illustration of Halley’s Comet in the Bayeux Tapestry.
41 Snorri Sturluson, King Harald’s Saga, chapter 22
42 Encomium Emmae Reginae, 2.9
43 Adam of Bremen, 3.17
44 Snorri Sturluson, King Harald’s Saga, chapter 87
45 Henry of Huntingdon, 2.27. The story was also interpolated into a version of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and may conceivably be authentic, for it is evident that the English were indeed briefly held up at the bridge. I include the story as a tribute to my first history teacher, Major Morris, whose blackboard drawing of the Viking being skewered through his privates first served to awaken me to the joys of medieval history.
46 Snorri Sturluson, King Harald’s Saga, chapter 91
47 Life of King Edward who Rests at Westminster, p. 53
48 Battle of Maldon, p. 294
49 Regino of Prüm, p. xx.
50 Widukind of Corvey, 2.1
51 The Life of King Edward, the Bayeux Tapestry, and even William of Poitiers, a gungho Norman, all imply that Harold had been nominated by the dying Edward.
52 William of Poitiers, 1.41
53 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle(Worcester manuscript), entry for 1066
54 Life of King Edward who Rests at Westminster, p. 51
55 William of Poitiers, 1.38
56 Life of King Edward who Rests at Westminster, p. 81
57 William of Poitiers, 1.48
58 Orderic Vitalis, vol. 2, p. 143
59 Peter Damian. Quoted by Cowdrey (1998), p. 42.
60 Gregory VII, Register, 7.23
61 William of Poitiers, 2.7
62 Ibid., 2.9
63 Ibid., 2.15
64 Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, p. 46
65 This seems to me the likeliest interpretation of Harold’s tactics, but it is not the only one. It is possible, of course, that he had always intended to fight a defensive battle – or indeed to blockade William inside Hastings, and not fight a battle at all. For an eclectic range of opinions, see Morillo. For a scythingly sceptical analysis of how little we know about the precise details of the battle, see Lawson (2007).
66 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, entry for 1003
67 Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, p. 46
68 Though no source specifically names them as being present at Hastings, the description of them in contemporary accounts of the battle leaves little room for doubt.
69 William of Poitiers, 2.21
70 Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, p. 49
71 That Harold was struck in the eye by an arrow is one of the most celebrated details of English history – but its fame derives principally from the Bayeux Tapestry, a hugely problematic piece of evidence. Other sources, however, some of them near contemporary, do lend credence to the tradition. See Lawson (2007), pp. 226–33
72 William of Poitiers, 2.25
73 Thorkill Skallasson. Quoted by Van Houts (1995), p. 836
74 Milo Crispin, 13.33
75 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle(Worcester manuscript), entry for 1066
76 Orderic Vitalis, 2.232
77 Hugh of Cluny, p. 143
78 William of Poitiers, 2.42.
7 An Inconvenient Truth
1 Lampert of Hersfeld, p. 80
2 Sigebert of Gembloux, p. 360
3 Rudolf’s kinship to Henry is probable but not absolutely certain. See Hlawitschka.
4 Lampert of Hersfeld, p. 92
5 Ibid., p. 81
6 Cited in Struve (1984), p. 424
7 Peter Damian, Letters, vol. 4, p. 151
8 Ibid., vol. 3, p. 27
9 Ibid., p. 80.
10 Ibid., vol. 2, p. 371
11 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 283
12 Ibid., vol. 3, p. 130
13 Ibid., p. 165
14 Literally “Loricatus”: a man armed with a breastplate.
15 Peter Damian, Vita Dominici Loricati, col. 1024. This is the first known record of the phenomenon.
16 Peter Damian, Letters, vol. 4, p. 61
17 Lampert of Hersfeld, p. 100
18 Rather of Verona, 2.3
19 Bonizo of Sutri, p. 203
20 Peter Damian, Letters, vol. 4, pp. 276–7
21 Bishop Otto of Bamberg, writing at the start of the twelfth century: testimony to the enduring presumption that the world was about to end. Cited by Morris, p. 37
22 Adémar, 3.138
23 Odo of Cluny, col. 570
24 Revelation 14.5. The virgins are the same as the 144,000 harpists whom a scholar at Auxerre had independently identified with the monks of Cluny.
25 Arnulf of Milan, 3.9
26 The question of whether an unworthy priest invalidated the miracle of the Mass was an ancient one, and orthodoxy – originally articulated, inevitably, by St. Augustine – argued that it did not. Peter Damian, in his public pronouncements, at any rate, went along with this. For a convincing argument that he may have had private doubts, however, see Elliott.
27 Peter Damian, Letters, vol. 2, p. 319
28 Arnulf of Milan, 3.15
29 Landulf Senior, 3.29
30 Bonizo of Sutri, p. 216
31 Gregory VII, Register, 1.85
32 From the only surviving letter written by Henry III to Abbot Hugh: PL 159, 932
33 Lampert of Hersfeld, p. 120
34 Bonizo of Sutri, p. 220
35 Peter Damian, Letters, vol. 3, p. 107
36 Jeremiah 1.10
37 Gregory VII, Register, 9.35
38 Ibid., 2.75
39 Ibid., 2.55a. From the so-called “Dictatus Papae,” “Dictation of the Pope.”
40 Abbot Walo of Metz. Quoted by Cowdrey (1998), p. 92
41 Gregory VII, Register, 1.49
42 Ibid., 2.37
43 Matthew of Edessa. Quoted by Vryonis, p. 81.
44 Michael Psellus, p. 98
45 Specifically, it was a boast of Danishmend Ghazi, a celebrated warlord who in the wake of Manzikert hacked out a princedom in the north-east of what is now Turkey. See Vryonis, p. 195
46 Matthew of Edessa. Quoted by Vryonis, p. 170
47 Gregory VII, Register, 1.22
48 Ibid., 1.23
49 Ibid., 2.31
50 Geoffrey of Malaterra, 1.9
51 Amatus of Monte Cassino, 2.8
52 Guiscard’s oath is reproduced in full in Loud, pp. 188–9
53 William of Apulia, p. 178
54 Ibid., p. 174
55 Geoffrey of Malaterra, 2.33. Even though Malaterra was writing after the First Crusade, and so may have been influenced by the ethos that surrounded it, historians generally accept that there was a strong religious dimension to how the Normans – and the papacy – viewed the conquest of Sicily. For a dissenting view, see Lopez.
56 Gregory VII, Register, 1.49
57 Ibid., 2.31
58 In fact, a supernova.
59 Vita Altmanni Episcopi Pataviensis, p. 230. The “vulgar opinion” was prompted by the fact that in 1065 the anniversaries of Christ’s conception, the Annunciation, and his death, Good Friday, coincided. The same thing happened in only one other year in the eleventh century: 1076, the same year that Gregory was hoping to arrive in Jerusalem.
60 Gregory VII, Register, 2.31
61 Ibid., 1.77. The “Apostle” is St. Paul: 1 Corinthians 4.3
62 Bruno of Merseburg, 16
63 Lampert of Hersfeld, p. 156
64 Ibid., p. 150
65 Ibid., p. 174
66 Gregory VII, Register, 1.25
67 Gregory VII, Epistolae Vagantes, 5
68 Ibid.
69 From the fateful letter sent by the imperial bishops to Gregory from Worms: Quellen zur Geschichte Kaiser Heinrich IV, p. 474
70 Quoted by Cowdrey (1998), p. 117
71 Gregory VII, Epistolae Vagantes, 11
72 Arnulf of Milan, 4.7
73 Gregory VII, Epistolae Va
gantes, 14
74 Henry IV, 12. From a longer version of the letter originally sent to Gregory, and disseminated for propaganda purposes.
75 Gregory VII, Register, 3.10a.
76 Lampert, p. 257
77 Ibid., p. 53
78 Henry IV, 14
79 Lampert, p. 285
80 Bruno of Merseburg, 74
81 Gregory VII, Register, 8.3
82 Ibid., 6.17
83 Ibid., 1.62
84 Gregory would later claim that he had not restored Henry to the kingship at Canossa, but at the time he seems to have left the matter ambiguous. Henry himself certainly believed his deposition to have been reversed.
85 Cited by Robinson (1999), p. 172
86 Paul of Bernried, 5
87 Gregory VII, Register, 8.10
88 Ibid., 2.13. From a letter to the King of Hungary.
89 Ibid., 4.28
90 Ibid., 7.23
91 Ibid., 7.6
92 Ibid., 8.21
93 Gregory VII, Epistolae Vagantes, 54
94 Ibid., 57. The letter was sent to Toirdhealbhach Ó Briain, “the illustrious king of Ireland.”
95 Gregory VII, Register, 8.21
96 Ibid., 6.5b.
97 Paul of Bernried, 107
98 Bonizo of Sutri, p. 255
99 Sigebert of Gembloux, p. 364
100 Bonizo of Sutri, pp. 248–9
101 Anna Comnena, p. 124
102 Ibid., p. 125
103 Ibid., p. 126
104 That Henry carefully withdrew from Rome before Hugh’s arrival suggests that it was he, rather than Gregory, who lay behind the abbot’s diplomatic mission. For a counter-view, see Cowdrey (1970), pp. 161–2
105 Gregory VII, Epistolae Vagantes, 54
106 Gregory VII, Register, Appendix 3
107 Sigebert of Gembloux, An Apology against Those who Challenge the Masses of Married Priests. Quoted by Leyser (1965), p. 42
108 Gilo, 1.7
109 Beno, 2.2
110 With what truth it is impossible to say.
111 Guibert de Nogent, A Monk’s Confession, 1.11.
112 Miraculi Sancti Hugonis. Quoted by Iogna-Prat (2002), p. 217
113 From a Cluniac charter of the late eleventh century. Quoted by Cowdrey (1970), p. 130
114 Urban II, col. 486. The bull was issued in 1097
115 The evidence that Hugh sent such letters is circumstantial, but convincing. See Cutler (1963).
116 Vita Sancti Anastasii, 5
117 Urban II, cols. 370–1
118 The agent’s words were recorded by the King of Granada himself: unsurprisingly they appear to have made quite an impression. They are quoted by O’Callaghan, p. 30
